A recent survey hit my radar this weekend and, I must say, I’m not that surprised by the results. Contrary to my usual columns, I won’t bury the lede: Accenture polled 300 large organizations in both the public and private sectors and—surprise!—found that half of them are “fully committed” to using open-source software in their businesses.

To be honest, I expected results more in line from the Zenoss survey I ran across this weekend, which notes that 98 percent of all enterprise companies use open-source software in some capacity. But I’ll leave that difference up to nomenclature / polling differences. The real juice of Accenture’s story is buried in a single, meager sentence somewhere toward the bottom of the press release: less that 29 percent of surveyed companies intend to shovel their open-source contributions/modifications/development back into the community.

Wait a second.

We’ve been down the, “What is open-source?” road before. I won’t bore you with a 700 word diatribe surrounding the exact definition of the term (it’s not that boring to me). However, it’s within the very nature of open-source to be community-dependent and, more importantly, community-driven. To not contribute back to the very people who basically give you an entire software platform completely gratis… well… it’s just not right!

However, I’m honestly surprised that the “29 percent” figure isn’t a lot lower. I can only speak to that-which-I-work-for-beyond-Maximum-PC, but it seems as if a number of those situated in higher positions within a company far too easily equate the phrase “open source” with “completely free,” as in, “If we could find an open source project to replicate X costly service, that would be awesome!”

There’s nothing ultimately wrong about that. Or is there? Should open-source software be treated as an extension of the definition of “freeware,” or should that which carries an open-source license be held to a higher standard than a mere free download for the masses?

Simply put, what does open-source want to be? That’s kind of a vague question shouted to the heavens, as it were, so let me clarify. If the very nature of “open-source” is defined by a software’s free price tag mixed with few restrictions on modifying the underlying source code to one’s own needs, then great. That’s about where we are right now.

I would assume that we’ve created “open-source” software partly as a means to distinguish it from simple “free” applications that, themselves, can be walled off from third-party modification while nevertheless remaining free to download and use. That was a mouthful and, worse, it veers narrowly close to the, “open-source versus free” discussion I’ve been trying to avoid. So allow me to simplify: If one downloads open-source, should one be compelled to contribute to the betterment of the program?

That would royally shaft anyone looking to benefit from open-source software as it currently exists, but is that so much of a bad thing? I realize that not everyone is a full-fledged codemonkey, so it’s not as if (perhaps) you, or I, could fire up Notepad++ and start hacking away at the innards of a particular application (I simplify; of course we wouldn’t use Notepad++). Still, part of me wonders if that shouldn’t be a de-facto requirement for open-source software.

Yes, I said it. Ditch the, “You can modify open-source apps in private and never release them to the community if you so desire” loophole. Ditch the, “You may download this and run it across an entire enterprise for no cost whatsoever” deal. Relegate open-source software to the contributors: Only those that propagate an application in some capacity--be it raw coding, publicity help, hosting mirrors, whatever—can reap the benefits of the “free” software.

The benefits, of course, are more than just free. Open-source, by its very nature, opens up an application to an almost Wiki-like pool of contributors, all willing to sacrifice their time, talent, and energy toward bettering a product simply, “because we can.” Why should so many others just take from the community chest or, worse, take and modify… but not give back?

Would this really stick it to those that depend on “free” software to survive? Not really. What’s to stop a group from releasing two versions of a software: One that’s open-source—up-to-the-minute support and feature additions so long as you, yourself, contribute—and one that’s freeware—a lesser-supported version that you may not alter in the slightest. Heck, maybe it’ll even have built-in advertising or something along those lines.

But 29 percent? Only 29 percent of companies using open-source intend to give back to the hand that fed them? The spirit of open source spins in its grave; that’s practically theft.

David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. He can't code applications for beans.

Comments

Open source does NOT automatically imply collaboration, as you seem to expect. I could release a piece of software and it's source, set up a download page for it and on it write in big bold letters: "ANY AND ALL BUG REPORTS, SUGGESTION AND CODE CONTRIBUTIONS WILL BE STRICTLY IGNORED OR REJECTED", but the mere fact that I've released the source code, together with a permissive enough license makes it an open source application. And in fact, a lot of notable open source projects will not accept code contributions from just anyone, but most will at least review them and sometimes even accept them.

But you could take my example and say, "Well, I can just take your source code, put it on my own website that allows contributions (usually via a source control system), and have a group of people collaborate on making a better version of it - a branch." And you would be correct, but that's what open source enables, not what it's inherently about. Take for example, the definition of OSS from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Open_Source_Definition. Nowhere in its ten clauses is collaboration even mentioned. In fact, a collaboration-inhibiting clause exists (number 4), which says the author has the right to prohibit others from distributing modified version of the source code! That means that in some cases you can't take the source code and branch it off, without jumping through hoops (by using patches).

Of course the nature of open source creates a spirit of collaboration, and it has become the norm and even expected when talking about OSS. But you must remember that it is merely a by-product that emerges from the principles of open source. A very good and desirable by-product, indeed, but separate from the core concept nonetheless.

Just a guess here, based on my particular situation, but asking the company this question is like <insert witty and funny analogy that describes the lack of awareness something massive has of one of it's smallest parts>.

I have no idea if the company I work for would have answered this yes or no. It's simply too massive to even guess, but I can certainly picture some high level managerial type person, thinking to himself that there is no way he's going to go on the record as giving his companies code away for free.

Yet, here I am, some 4 or 5 or more hops down the chain from him. My job is providing a service to my company that consists completely of open source software (even though we're paying for the enhanced version and support for the main application). I often work closely with the developers of that application, and for certain, contributions I make can and will make it to the open source version of their application.

So, while a "Company" may not say they contribute back, I'm guessing that there are a fair number of employees who can and do contribute, directly due to their work on and with open source software as part of their jobs, or in the course of doing their jobs.

I don't trust polls anymore anyway. You don't know how the question was spun...or the answers interpreted.

You posted an article shaming people for not financially contributing to the creators of software that was offered for free... on a website that many people come to who openly admit to stealing software/media from creators who ask to be paid for it. I agree that the 29% number seems high.

Who said anything about financials? I'm talking about code. You modify code, you have to give it back--that's the core tenet of open-source, but it's a rule that can be skirted around. I'm suggesting that one closes the loophole.

On a side note, I didn't realize the MPC audience had such a huge piracy binge going on. That's news to me, and I've been here quite a bit longer than you have. ;)

You are correct sir, I read into your post the financial aspect. My mistake. Regarding the piracy thing - you should read more comments on David Gerrold's copyright posts, your tenure at MPC notwithstanding.

Murph, are you sure about have to? I can't remember the specifics, but I think it may based on what the license states (MPL, GPL, LGPL, BSD, etc.). I think most have clauses about modification and release and (I may be incorrect...too lazy to check right now) only if you intend to release the modifications made (especially if they are specific to your environment) do you need to have those mods under the same lic. (and hence return contribution to community).

If you've muck around and made mods that benefit your company alone...is there a requirement to contribute?

Of course, one can also contribute by fiscal, or other means (documentation, translations, etc.).

The whole point of software is that a few smart and dedicated developers can produce something used by one person to several million people with very little change in effort. Its not like the developers of 'ls' have to do double the amount of work when the number of active linux installations doubles.

The key here is that a few smart people are at the reigns of each OSS project, and that's working out great so far. I mean think about the chaos if 28% of everybody using Excel was submitting their own half baked code into the source tree. Yikes. As the current set of developers move or on burn out, there will be a new set of folks who find problems they are passionate about solving and the code will continue to mature and advance.

Ahh, but people tend to get annoyed when one forks a core project and refuses to contribute code in a timely fashion back to said core project. cough google android cough.

Still, I think the point is perhaps better illustrated thusly--of those using open-source in more than just a "i click the program to make it run" fashion, they should be mandated to contribute code back to the original repository from whence it came. None of this "oh, well we run it in private, so whatever" crap, and none of this, "ehhh well we need to keep it secret because..." crap.

Yes, yes, that is a very small percentage of companies that return the favor, but you yourself noted that the figure was to be expected. Developers must go into this knowing they aren't going to have a very large return on their investment. This is just the nature of the game.

ps MaxPC is so much better than Gizmodo when it comes to the quality of posts and the EASE OF COMMENTING. My only complaint is that you guys don't do more articles. Keep up the good work!